The unambiguous proof of light actually traveling - does it exist?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Quantum Quack, May 10, 2007.

  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Up that 4 to 5.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I have been patient trying to see where you were going. Almost jumped a while back to ask if you really wanted / expected some one to prove anything existed, if all they could use in their proof was a vast nothingness, completely free of all matter, but did not.

    I am posting now as it seems to me to very simple to separate the “EM” and the “reflector.”

    I think it safe to assume that the interaction between the reflector and EM is local. Thus fact that it take longer for light reflected by a reflector left on the moon to return to Earth based laser source than if the reflector on the other wall over there, must not be attributed to the reflector alone. I.e. there must be something else.

    I.e. there is something traveling. I don't care too much what it is called, but as I do have a conventional streak, I prefer "photon" for name of this carrier of energy.

    Also in spite of your not wanting to use interactions with matter, I can not help but be impressed by how well the measured energy it dose carry correlates with the angles and the grading equation's predictions of them when a spectral grading reflection takes place. (Spectrograph). Thus, I think these photons have both “energy” and a "wavelength" with an inversely proportionality between these two properties that all photons demonstrate.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Philosophy.

    Everything that exists can only be experienced by interaction with our senses and not any other way.
    Which leaves us with the dilemma of whether we are experiencing anything as commonly held, or are we experiencing something else.

    You throw a ball to me, and I throw it back.
    Can you prove that the ball actually travelled?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Pete,

    No, he can't even prove he has any balls.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Montec Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Hello Quantum Quack

    Don't forget that a photon kicks on both ends of its journey. The emitter receives backward push when the photon is emitted and the receiver gets a forward push when the photon is absorbed. The photon is a force carrier in this regard.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    Running the risk of being a little silly here SuperL and I think you know me well enough for me to take that risk.....what you are suggesting is like seeing a big hole in the ground and assuming that a shovel was used to dig it when it could be many other tools that could have been used, bulldozer, pick, spoon, lump of timber, laser guided WMD and so on.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    IMO the effect on a reflective mass is like the hole in the ground. Is it there because of a photon [shovel] or is it something else that generates the effect.
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    Look guys guys guys.....hmmmmm

    It doesn't matter whether I am being given the rassberry the simple fact is that my oridginal question appears to be answered and that is all I wanted to find out.
    The Em radiation cannot be differentiated from an object of mass reflecting it. Therfore I rest my case.

    Believers in the almighty photon can rest easy for a little while longer prehaps....hmmmmmmm

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    ps. I didn't post this thread with any intention of getting into anything else so I am unprepared to fight the fight.....but ......one day......some further fun is to be had
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    well at least the ball is not someones drawing on a piece of paper describing a ball and the photon is just that an abstraction that can;t be sensed in transit by any of our senses. Where as the ball can be touched, smelled, heard and yes, even seen to be in transit.
    Show me a photon in the same way, demonstrate it and I will declare my question answered to the affirmative.

    no drawings and sketches or abstractions allowed.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    and and and...I might add it is no coincidence that both philosophy and physics are plagued by the same intractable connundrum. a duality nothingness and something ness and Em radiation and reflector or more precicely gravity and mass
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2007
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    a bit like the ole zenism. [ speaking of philosophy ]
    Does a photon exist if there is nothing to reflect it?
     
  13. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Not too much like it, though. Because there are photons currently traveling through space that have been doing so for billions of years without having yet been reflected once.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    ha.....and you honestly expect me to believe that when you can't prove a photon exists except as a convenient model premised on the assumption that "something must be there"....I thought science was more about....nahhh forget it.....

    sorry Read only just having some fun..playing the fool......:m:
     
  15. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    QQ, are you disputing that photons travel, or that light travels?

    You accept that you can detect a flash of light or any other electrical signal in transit, right?
     
  16. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Gotcha!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    I accept that a light or Em event can be detected at a given location in space yes. This does not necessarilly mean that the light or Em event describes something in transit. All it means is that the event is detected. This I would call hard evidence of something occuring. However it is merely circumstancial to say that the cause of the event is or more correctly was in transit.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2007
  18. ecclesiastes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    82
    qq,
    when you touch or smell or hear or see the ball you are interacting with it.
     
  19. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    This is what Einstein would have called "spooky action at a distance". You want to events to be correlated across space and time, which have no reason to be correlated. Say an electron in an excited helium atom changes to a lower energy state. Somewhere else in that helium atom, an electron spontaneous jumps to a higher energy state.

    There is no explanation for why the second electron should move to a higher energy state. This violates the second law of thermodynamics---i.e. improbable things just don't "happen". In your model, the two events are uncorrelated. In my model, the second electron absorbs the photon, giving it more energy, allowing it to move to a higher energy level.

    Your law violates causality, unitarity and the second law of thermodynamics, mine has been tested to thirteen decimal places.
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    Ben, with all due respect I haven't even stated a law yet or described an appropriate alternative.
    All I am pointing out is that there appears to be a gaping hole in what we have interpreted 'c' to be. In that 'c' could be relevant to something other than the photon model we are currently using. ie transit speeds of wave or photon.
    for example:
    The double slit experiement clearly proves that we have a problem with our current understanding IMO. And I find it amazing how much length we will go to adapt this pet theory to accomodate the problem.
     
  21. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    QQ: All our senses work in a similar way. We cannot smell until odours reach our nose. We cannot hear until noises reach our ears. But we do not claim that noise and odour do not exist. Ditto for electromagnetic waves. We cannot see until light reaches our eyes. But they do, and so we know they exist.
    Yes, we only obtain tangible evidence of electromagnetic radiation when it interacts with something tangible - something with mass. We turn a shrouded lamp towards an object, and when that object lights up and that light hits our eyes, only then do we really know that our lamp was turned on. But then when we turn another lamp towards that object and notice an interference pattern, we know that the photons from one lamp interacted with the photons from the other. There are some places where the object is now in darkness, and no light from there reaches our eyes, because of the second lamp, because light interacted with light.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Light does travel a distance. Whilst no time passes for a photon, and in it's world length contraction is total, we can step into its path, we can reflect it, deflect it, and create events for it in its timeless spaceless world. Because that world is not the real world. Ours is.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    ahhhh now we are talking

    however does the interferance happen at the reflector or in flight too the reflector?
    If it happens at the reflector then the question stands as NO but if there is interference ie photon on photon in flight in a vacuum [ no other medium ] then the question may yet be answered to the affirmative.

    question:

    Say we cross two beams of laser in a vacuum do they interfere with each other where they intersect and is this detectable without a reflector mass at that intersection. Can we see the intersection interferrance in the vacuum with our eyes or otherwise detect it remotely?
     
  23. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    How is that different to detecting a ball at a given location in space?
    What is it about a thrown ball that convinces you that it is in transit?
     

Share This Page